|From:||Artem Luzyanin <lisyonok85(at)yahoo(dot)ca>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: PATCH: Spinlock Documentation|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Thank you again for your feedback. I have improved the patch with your suggestions. Please let me know what you think and if I can do anything else.
Current CommitFest link for this patch is: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/5/208/
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 5:59 PM, Artem Luzyanin <lisyonok85(at)yahoo(dot)ca> wrote:
Thank you very much for your feedback! I will work on the changes as soon as I can.
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> One issue with this patch is that it is not localized. If someone
> goes and changes the S_LOCK implementation for one of the platforms
> below, or adds a new platform, etc., without changing this comment
> too, this comment becomes confusingly obsolete.
Indeed. Moreover, this header comment is supposed to be an overview and
specification of the macros that need to be provided. I think it's an
actively bad idea to clutter it with platform-by-platform details; that
will create a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem.
If we need more info here, I think a comment block before each section
of the file would make more sense. But the patch as provided seems
like it would just be redundant if it were refactored in that form.
What would possibly be useful that's not there now is a paragraph or
two describing the overall layout of the file (eg "gcc then non gcc",
or whatever can be said at more or less that level of detail). But
please don't stick that into the middle of the specification part.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andrew Dunstan||2015-04-11 20:56:06||FDW oddity|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2015-04-11 11:48:21||Re: improving speed of make check-world|